Category: Uncategorized

Today I was reading in the scriptures this account of Matthew(27)when Jesus was arrested: “And while he yet spake, lo, Judas, one of the twelve, came, and with him a great multitude with swords and staves, from the chief priests and elders of the people. Now he that betrayed him gave them a sign, saying, Whomsoever I shall kiss, that same is he: hold him fast. And forthwith he came to Jesus, and said, Hail, master; and kissed him.”

I was looking at several artistic representations of Christ, in most cases the artist seem to portrait him as a white-looking man (or light-skinned) with blonde hair and blue eyes.

I am not blaming artists during the Renaissance period or any other period of time for such depiction because that’s exactly how they pictured him, looking similar to Western Europeans.

However, due to our past and present history with race and skin color (Priesthood ban, black sisters forbidden to go to the temple, the pseudo-doctrine of blacks being non-valiant in the preexistence, Cain’s curse, Nephites being white and delightsome while Lamanites were cursed with a dark skin, and the list continues..) I wonder how important is for people who aren’t white in the Church to relate to a Deity of a different race or skin color? When our Latino or Black brothers and sisters see a picture of Christ, can they identify with him?

We don’t really discuss much the issue of race in Church because we figure we are all brothers and sisters in the Gospel, but mostly because the topic makes us uncomfortable but unfortunately some of our past teachings are still alive and kicking.

I know of a few people who still believe and preach that Blacks were not valiant in the pre-existence and they”re not afraid to say so.

I remember once when I was a teenager, the missionaries and I went to visit this young Latino girl. When we were discussing the Book of Mormon, one of the missionaries referred to her as a “Lamanite” (I was *this* close to do something I would later regret). The young woman was visibly upset but didn’t say anything and just looked down with sadness. After the meeting, I asked him why he said such a thing and he told me in all seriousness that all “Latino people are Lamanite descendants and they are not like him” (of course, “white and delightsome”).

Kenneth and Mamie Clark were African American psychologists. During the 1940’s, they published three major papers about children and perception of race. They did several experiments using dolls. It involved a child being presented with two dolls.

Both of these dolls were identical except for the skin and hair color. One doll was white with blond hair, and the other was brown with black hair. The child was then asked questions such as which doll they would play with, which one is the nice doll and the bad one, as well as which one was the “pretty” doll and the “ugly” doll. The experiment showed a clear preference for the white doll among all children in the study. This experiment was repeated a few years ago with similar results.

In a world where everywhere you turn, the depiction of perfect beauty is being white (preferably blonde), do we try in our very small ways to demonstrate there is beauty everywhere regardless of race? I wonder, do we assume things about our brothers and sisters based solely on their ethnicity? For instance, if we see a Latino brother, do we assume automatically that he is not educated, illegal, on welfare and he cannot speak English? If we see a black single Sister in the Church, do we automatically assume that she would only date a guy of her own ethnicity? (after all, she should ‘stick” to her own race?)

This is not about being politically correct, this is not about people being too ‘sensitive” “¦this is about understanding, being empathetic and not assuming that just because something isn’t that important to us (because it doesn’t affect us directly) we expect our brothers and sisters (who are minorities) to do the same.

Everyone needs to feel they fit in and I think we have a lot of work to do on that regard. Personally I would love to see in our LDS chapels (particularly those branches or wards with a large membership made out of minorities) different representations of Christ rather than just the typical blondish man. I would like to see a beautiful Black looking Christ or a Latino looking one (Or any other race/ethnicity for that matter). A Christ for everyone.

Did you ever wonder how Jesus would look like if he was clean shaven, with short hair and wearing a suit? I saw this picture in the blog of someone called Mithryn.

We always talk about “Sunday best” but what’s considered “best” seems to be a matter of personal interpretation and of course culture, depending on your geographical location.

However, it worries me when we seem to make a direct connection between clothes/personal grooming with worthiness. The General Handbook of Instructions says:

“Those who bless and pass the sacrament should dress modestly and be well groomed and clean. Clothing or jewelry should not call attention to itself or distract members during the sacrament. Ties and white shirts are recommended because they add to the dignity of the ordinance. However, they should not be required as a mandatory prerequisite for a priesthood holder to participate. Nor should it be required that all be alike in dress and appearance. Bishops should use discretion when giving such guidance to young men, taking into account their financial circumstances and maturity in the Church.”

Even though, I do not necessarily see how a tie and a white shirt “add” to the dignity of the Sacrament, I don’t think priesthood holders (specially the youth) should be told they cannot pass the sacrament because their shirts aren’t white. Of course, I do understand it for any other reason but not as THE reason for refusal.

Wearing a white shirt doesn’t automatically make you worthy just like wearing a beard doesn’t automatically make you a drug addict. Young people are very impressionable and I think we need to be tactful and understanding when we deal with these things.

How many of us would be criticizing the Jesus in the first picture if he comes to Church unshaven and wearing a red robe? How many of us would think the second Jesus is possibly a returned missionary, worthy to pass the sacrament just based on the way he looks?

The thing is…both pictures are from the exact same person. Less facial hair and a new wardrobe didn’t change Jesus, it changed our perception of him.

I really like the lyrics for Hymn # 235 “Should You Feel Inclined to Censure”

1. Should you feel inclined to censure
Faults you may in others view,
Ask your own heart, ere you venture,
If you have not failings, too.
Let not friendly vows be broken;
Rather strive a friend to gain.
Many words in anger spoken
Find their passage home again.

2. Do not, then, in idle pleasure
Trifle with a brother’s fame;
Guard it as a valued treasure,
Sacred as your own good name.
Do not form opinions blindly;
Hastiness to trouble tends;
Those of whom we thought unkindly
Oft become our warmest friends.

Text: Anon., ca. 1863
Music: Philip Paul Bliss, 1838-1876

Perhaps the next time we feel the itch to criticize or gossip about someone for not wearing the right shirt color, or the right shoes, or the right skirt length to Church it would be nice if we think about the fact that they CAME and in many instances, it took a lot of sacrifices for them to be there. What we can at least do, is welcome everyone with open arms.

In Hugh Nibley’s famous words:

“The worst sinners, according to Jesus, are not the harlots and publicans, but the religious leaders with their insistence on proper dress and grooming, their careful observance of all the rules, their precious concern for status symbols, their strict legality, their pious patriotism… The haircut becomes the test of virtue in a world where Satan deceives and rules by appearances.”

I noticed that when the discussion of the possibility of women being ordained to the Priesthood arises, suddenly it seems to create this picture of a half woman, half beast with long and thick horns, blistering foul-smelling breath-fire coming out from her mouth and a long, strong whip ready to be used to lash anyone who doesn’t submit to her unrighteous power and dominion.

Of course when we talk about men exercising the same Priesthood, the picture seems to be different. Radiant beings from on high (*Gregorian songs playing in the background*) ready to exercise that Priesthood for the sake of giving selfless service, honor and the blessings and upliftment of mankind. Go figure.

But the heated discussion going on presently (online and offline) about women holding the Priesthood didn’t start recently. It started right after Joseph Smith’s death when Brigham Young dissolved the Relief Society and he declared that women can never hold the Priesthood apart from their husbands. He also said:

“When I want Sisters or the Wives of the members of the church to get up Relief Society I will summon them to my aid but until that time let them stay at home & if you see females huddling together veto the concern “¦ and if they say Joseph started it tell them its a damned lie for I know he never encouraged it.” (Seventies Record, 9 Mar. 1845).

I’m curious, why do we attach such a negative purpose to those women who wish to be ordained? Why when we talk about the Priesthood and men we talk about how wonderful and amazing it is and how many lives are blessed, changed and saved through it but when we talk about women holding it, we suddenly change the tone and we speak about women wanting to be like men, and using the Priesthood authority to put men down and for their own self-gratification?

It’s funny though, because for one side we hear the rhetoric about women being inherently more spiritual, more sensitive, more everything than men (yeah yeah yeah, sounds terrific but heck no, I don’t buy it). I suppose those qualities are all true as long as they are not looking to become Priestesses?

My favorite line of all: “You all have Motherhood!” (In other words, be happy and stop complaining for crying out loud!) And you all have Fatherhood andddd? Priesthood and Motherhood are non-equals. Motherhood and Fatherhood ARE equals and as the Family Proclamation dictates:

“Parents have a sacred duty to rear their children in love and righteousness, to provide for their physical and spiritual needs, and to teach them to love and serve one another, observe the commandments of God, and be law-abiding citizens wherever they live. Husbands and wives-mothers and fathers-will be held accountable before God for the discharge of these obligations.”

“By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners.”

I do not know if the Church would ever ordain women to the Priesthood during my lifetime, but I do get a feeling that it will eventually happen. Whether the Church is ready for that change or not is a different issue altogether. Personally, I do not seek it but I know of sisters who do and I don’t see anything wrong with that wish. It’s actually pretty logical to me.

For those who think we shouldn’t pray or ask about these things I say why not? Think about it, a lot of the revelations we have received are the product of questioning and praying ( Word of Wisdom, Plural Marriage, Ending of the Priesthood ban, etc).

President Gordon B. Hinckley said in an interview about the possibility of women holding the Priesthood:

“RB: Is it possible that the rules could change in the future as the rules are on Blacks ?

GBH: He could change them yes. If He were to change them that’s the only way it would happen.

So you”d have to get a revelation?

GBH: Yes. But there’s no agitation for that. We don’t find it. Our women are happy. They”re satisfied. These bright, able, wonderful women who administer their own organisation are very happy. Ask them. Ask my wife.”

Now, I do understand that there could be many interpretations for that statement but for me, it indicates that sometimes revelations come through simply asking”¦specially when a large number of people are seeking and showing interest in receiving a specific blessing and perhaps the aid of a little “Agitation”?.

It doesn’t mean it will automatically result in a revelation granting such wish, it doesn’t mean the Church will bend on social pressure, it means that our leaders are willing to pray and seek for a revelation on that particular issue. It just simply means that.

Brigham Young also ordained three more sons to apostleship (critics would accuse Young and others of nepotism) He ordained them without the prior knowledge of any General Authority and because it was a private ordination, their names were never presented to the Church for sustaining vote.

Except, Brigham Jr later in life, the other three sons of Brigham Young (including John) never became part of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. According to Young’s daughter, the reason why John was ordained to apostleship at such a young age was because he was the first son of Brigham after the latter received his full temple endowments.

John W. Young was described as someone with a charming personality and very eloquent. He attempted several business ventures that ended up failing terribly and John’s inability to pay his debts caused many to doubt his intentions and felt his business deals were very dishonest. Heber J. Grant wrote in his journal that he wished he had confidence in John but he didn’t have any and said if the Lord is going to use a man with a dishonest financial record to give people liberty (statehood) He was placing a premium on dishonest methods.

We get it, John wasn’t popular or liked. Due to his controversial business deals, he was tried several times by the Church but he managed to keep his calling as Apostle.

Despite great efforts by his father, John didn’t really fulfilled Church responsibilities due to his active life and business in New York. He seemed more concerned about traveling (and becoming rich) than fulfilling his religious responsibilities. Brigham would write him constantly pleading with him to return to Utah and he even went as far as pay John’s debtors in order to convince him to come back. He eventually did when his father extended him the calling as a First Counselor in the First Presidency in 1876. He served in this capacity for a year, until Brigham Young’s death.

A year prior to this (1875), Brigham also made a policy change with regards to presidential succession adding the requirement of continuous apostolic service.

John Taylor wasn’t supposed to be Young’s successor but Orson Hyde followed by Orson Pratt. However, both were informed by the First Presidency during a meeting that they lost their seniority in the Quorum due to issues they experienced with Joseph Smith in Nauvoo (Hyde was disfellowshipped and left the church for a period of time and the Quorum,) so his seniority was changed to the date of his readmission. In Orson Pratt’s case, his wife falsely accused Joseph Smith of trying to seduce her and he was excommunicated in 1842, returning to the Church a year later.

On December 1899, Apostle Franklin D. Richards died. His death left John Young now as the second most senior apostle in the church.There was no doubt he would become the President after Lorenzo Snow’s death. John was only 55 years old but his reputation based on honesty issues, bankruptcies, non-serious commitment to the building of the Kingdom of God meant that he wasn’t a favorite, as a matter of fact, there were a lot of leaders who were quite vocal against his practices like Joseph F. Smith.

In 1900, Lorenzo Snow’s health was deteriorating rapidly and at the age of 85 he decided along with George Q. Cannon and Joseph F. Smith to change the policy of presidential succession to what we know it now: The new president of the church would be the person who had been a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles for the longest period of time and in continuous apostolic status. Since John was never a member of the Quorum of the Twelve, he could not become the President of the Church. Bummer!

A year after this policy, President Snow died and Joseph F. Smith was called as the new Church President. One can only imagine John’s disappointment when he heard of the new policy, he was in Utah at that time surely not by coincidence but, possibly hoping to become the new President. He returned to the East shortly after and died in New York at the age of 79.

We seem to want to coerce others to comply to our own very limited understanding of what we believe to be true. We go around very sure of ourselves, pointing fingers at others and passing quick judgments about them without knowing their lives or their circumstances. In most instances, we use mean and unkind words to describe them but we ensure to say at the same time that we do it in the name of defending Christ’s Church.

Every time we meet someone, we judge. Often times even before we ever get to know them at all. It’s human nature. Mormons are not the exception to the rule because when you clearly add any religion to the mix (when we have religious discussions) it becomes a deadly combination, a spiritual bazooka with spiteful grenades ready to be launched in order to hurt and destroy others just because someone may have a different view on a topic.

Of course, besides all this, we seem to have the supernatural ability to read minds and intentions and we label and attach these intentions as we see it fit. We do it in Church when we judge and assume things about someone based on their physical appearance, education, ethnicity, church activity, financial status or hierarchy in callings.

Spiritual Bazookas also seem to be more and more prevalent online, where our self-labeled soldiers are ready to ambush the enemy at the tiniest perception of threat against the Church. The problem is that their perceived attack is often times just a respectful disagreement, and the people they are launching an attack against are from the same exact troop, not the enemy.

It seems like often times, in our well-intentioned overzeal to defend the Church we are unable to recognize the ally from the foe.

The Priesthood holder started his talk by praising all the female young single adults by stating how wonderful and beautiful they are, how pleased were the Brethren because of their faithfulness and how happy he was for the progress they were making. Then he changed his voice drastically, as he started literally to rebuke the young men present until the very end of his talk, and said something that I remember perfectly: “Sisters are more Spiritual”.

I noticed within Mormonism, there is this belief that women are inherently more spiritual than men. The LDS feminist inside me wants to accept that statement and run away with it but the Cheeky Mormon tells me no (I know, it’s a power struggle).

Back in the 19th century, Brigham Young stated that women are less accountable for sin and therefore they will be easily saved. Why? Because in a few words women are too “goodie-goodie” to sin. Is there any doctrinal basis for such perception? How do we measure spirituality in the first place? Is it this concept fair to our brethren?

Some people would argue “More women than men attend Church every Sunday”. Depending on your location, that might well be true however: Does it make them more Spiritual? Like one of my favorite quotes says “Going to church doesn’t make you a Christian, anymore than standing in a garage makes you a car”.

The rhetoric that women are inherently more teachable, humble, and spiritualthan men seem to have two sides. One, the perception that makes men look spiritually handicapped and second, an indirect and possibly unintentional attempt to patronize sisters.

When All Enlisted created the idea of Wear to Pants to Church day and the petition about women praying in Conference, it started the eternal debate about the gender roles. Most uber-conservative Mormons stated that what this “feminist” group really want is for women to hold the Priesthood. From there, a whole new debate erupted and it is usually only a matter of time until someone says “Women do not hold the Priesthood because they don’t need it, men do”.

This type of rethoric, is one of the reasons we do not feel that our young women and their adult leaders need proper leadership training, after all they are already spiritual, humble, and natural leaders and we end up somehow abandoning them spiritually because we assume they don’t need it. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Our Young Women and adult leaders are in desperately need of help, support and validation. They NEED to be trained so they can be prepared for the future, and regardless of whether or not they will get married one day and have two or three million babies, or they will face divorce or unemployment, leadership skills are life- saving tools that they can use in ALL aspects of their lives, no matter their circumstances. Depriving them of such is trying to look at their present and future with rose tinted glasses.

The day we understand (not by theory but by practice) that our Young Women’s Progress is as important as our Young Men’s Progress, we would be able to accomplish great things with both groups without disregarding anyone, we would be celebrating our Young Women’s accomplishments in Church properly (instead of handling them a certificate or cold medallion for a few seconds in sacrament meeting). We would start applying and showing the same exact organization, celebration, fervor, and excitement we seem to express with our Young Men and Eagle Scouts.

Before I joined the LDS Church as a young child, I was a Catholic (well, sort of). I spent seven years in a private Catholic Elementary School where my nanny would take my sister and I every day and pick us up late in the afternoon.

Since I was small, I was quite outspoken. The nuns didn’t seem to like that characteristic too much so if I said something that wasn’t always in harmony with Catholic teachings, they would chastise me and send me to stand for a few hours next to this gigantic statue of the Virgin Mary OR if I did something really mischievous( like what I did in my first Communion when I led a very mean girl to a place where I saw a bat, the poor animal ended up biting her dress as she cried and run hysterically all over the chapel) I would be send to pray all day, on my knees and forced to confess to Father Robert “all my wicked acts”.

He was extremely patient with me as I told him time and time again that I have nothing to confess “because I am just a child and children do not sin”. He would sigh and tell me to pray and go back to class.

When I joined the Church at the age of eleven, I thought I finally found a place where I could express a lot of my thoughts. As the years passed by, many times my unconventional way of seeing things were not always welcome and to a certain and big extent, they still not but I AM a Mormon, even though:

1. I don’t think a white shirt should be a requirement to pass the sacrament or having a beard a sort of prohibition from serving in a specific calling.

2. I don’t believe the Priesthood ban was inspired by God but by 19th century prejudice.

3. I don’t believe every single word that comes out of the Prophet or his leaders is revelation from God, I don’t believe leaders are infallible. I think they are well-intentioned men who do a lot of good for the Church, with a lot of God’s inspiration and sometimes man-made policies and opinions.

4. I believe some callings come from inspiration and others desperation.

5. I don’t believe that the statement about our leaders “not leading us astray” applies to every single doctrinal issue but applies to basic principles of Salvation (meaning, leading us astray from God and Jesus Christ).

6. I believe in separation of Church and State. Hence, I do not oppose gay marriage (however, I support the Church decision of not wanting to marry gay couples if they don’t wish to do so).

Having said all this, they don’t define me. Why do we define others by them? All these things are just a small part of what I believe and who I am:

A child of God with great hopes and aspirations, a child of God who believes everyone should have a place in the Church of Christ no matter how different they may seem, because in the end we are all here for the same purpose: To return to Him one day.

We can choose to go through this journey together, lifting one another, encouraging each other throughout the journey, looking pass the differences but focusing on the similarities…

OR

We can choose to be separated from one another, concerned about who is right and who is wrong, pointing fingers at one another and worrying about fixing our phylacteries.

In 1981, the Church announced the introduction of what we refer to as the “Three Hour Sunday Block”. Prior to this, meetings were being held on Sunday mornings and afternoons as well as classes during the week. One can only imagine how exhausting and busy it was for the leaders and general membership, leaving little time for quality time with their families.

Thirty-two years have passed and I wonder how effective our three hour Sunday block really is?. It seems like we spend quite a lot of time learning the things we are supposed to be doing during the week however, despite the three hour sessions, home and visiting teaching seems to be always a cause of concern and struggle.

Is it that the Saints get caught in real life situations and forget everything else? Is it that the Saints simply do not know how to show compassion and care towards others? Or Is it that Church has become merely a pure theoretical event where we sit down and give the best golden answers we can possibly give? Then we leave Church and talk to ourselves saying “Good job, you are really active”. But what exactly is our definition of being “active”?

According to the dictionary, active means “engaged in action; characterized by energetic work and participation”. How exactly this definition fits our attitude on Sunday meetings? Folks, I know. Church is like a training field, where we are supposed to learn everything we can and then apply it to our lives. The thing is, doesn’t seem to be working very well if we take into consideration the enormous problem with membership retention.

Wouldn’t be a good idea to leave the three hour Sunday block but use it differently? Perhaps, one hour for Sacrament meeting and the other two hours for visiting the sick, the elderly, the poor, or those who are not coming to Church? In other words, the theory and the practice that can serve us also as inspiration for a new week to start?

Facial hair seems to be a sort of controversial topic in LDS culture. No. Really, it is. When you talk about it, you usually get two clear positions: Those who believe we should follow the Brethren with regards to dress and grooming and others who believe it is a personal decision that should be left up to the individual (I am sooo glad I am NOT a man!). The last prophet to have a beard was George Albert Smith.

Every Church president starting with Brigham Young (thank you Joseph, I think you looked amazing without one) up to George Albert Smith grew beards. Except Lorenzo Snow and Joseph F. Smith, all of them had what I would refer to as “manageable facial hair”. I really wonder though how long it took for President Snow and President Smith to take care of their beards. When Lorenzo Snow was serving time in jail, he received permission to keep his beard after doctors advised that shaving it would adversely affect his health (under prison rules, facial hair was shaved once a week).

The 1850s and 1860s was known as “The Golden Age of Beards” a time when a beard was a primary sign of wisdom, independence, masculinity, authority and honor. There are a few early Saints who had interesting beards to say the least. Let’s take a look at some of my favorite ones:

Orson Pratt’s free -spirit beard

Karl G. Maeser’s traditionally short

Porter Rockwell’s Token beard

After being nine months in prison, Joseph Smith blessed Porter and told him that as long as he was faithful to his covenants that nothing would ever harm him, he also told him that in token of accepting this covenant, he should never cut his hair or beard.

I wonder though how exactly Brother Reynolds, Orson Pratt, Lorenzo Snow, Porter Rockwell and others would eat our present spaghetti and meatballs or chocolate pudding? I can only imagine how messy that would be!

But we are back in 2013 and facial hair seems to be frowned upon by some leaders still. I really don’t know why. I am not a fan of beards myself (no people, I never had one) but I mean I am not particularly crazy about them although a goatie is quite nice if you ask me (againnn, not for me). As long as it is kept nice and neat, what is the problem? We are not in the 1960’s anymore.

I heard about following the Brethren’s example on this. The thing is, personal grooming for me is”¦well”¦PERSONAL and as much as I understand the need to be clean and neat and as much as I respect our dear brethren, I think most people are quite capable to take a decision like that on their own. And some of those decisions might well include a beard or a mustache. Or BOTH.

Disobedience? (Against what commandment?). One thing for sure, I won’t be wearing one anytime soon.

I am quite sure that by now you guys have seen all the changes in the new quad. The Church addition to Official Declaration 2 is remarkable. I always thought it needed a sort of heading or introduction (before you get into the actual letters) and even though I am well aware that a lot of little changes have taken place all over the Scriptures, this one is of particular interest to me. The new addition to Official Declaration 2 reads:

Book of Mormon teaches that “all are alike unto God,” including “black and white, bond and free, male and female” (2 Nephi 26:33). Throughout the history of the Church, people of every race and ethnicity in many countries have been baptized and have lived as faithful members of the Church. During Joseph Smith’s lifetime, a few black male members of the Church were ordained to the priesthood. Early in its history, Church leaders stopped conferring the priesthood on black males of African descent. Church records offer no clear insights into the origins of this practice. Church leaders believed that a revelation from God was needed to alter this practice and prayerfully sought guidance. The revelation came to Church President Spencer W. Kimball and was affirmed to other Church leaders in the Salt Lake Temple on June 1, 1978. The revelation removed all restrictions with regards to race that once applied to the priesthood.

1. The mention of people of every race and ethnicity (throughout history) been baptized as faithful members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is important. The Church never denied the saving ordinance of baptism to people of African heritage.

2. I was glad to read the addition that a few black male members of the Church were ordained to the Priesthood in the early days. In 1836, Elijah Abel became the first black man to be given the priesthood in the LDS Church by not other than the Prophet Joseph Smith himself and during the same year, he also became a Seventy.

There were several attempts throughout the years to try to state that Elijah didn’t in fact hold the Priesthood because according to a few members, Joseph Smith received a revelation that blacks are not to be ordained. Zebedee Coltrin is one of those persons who stated that Joseph said so in 1834, the thing is he said this in 1879, 40 years later and he proved to have a fragile memory since he was the one who ordained Elijah a Seventy in 1836.

As a matter of fact, three years later there was a meeting to discuss Elijah Abel but his priesthood was NEVER questioned. If what Coltrin said is accurate, this wouldn’t have been the case, not to mention that there is proof: Elijah Abel had the certificates of ordination.

Elijah was not the only Black Elder. In 1837, Wilford Woodruff recorded on his journal about an African American Elder by the name of Joseph T. Ball who was the Boston Branch president from 1844 – 1845, he was also ordained a High Priest (also, he later on served a mission with Wilford Woodruff).

Walker Lewis (a radical abolitionist), is another African American LDS member who received his Priesthood in 1844, (there are conflicts reports about who ordained him, possibly the youngest brother of Joseph Smith or Parley P. Pratt, according to Jane Elizabeth James). Brigham Young described him as “one of the best Elders”.

3. “Early in its history, Church leaders stopped conferring the priesthood on black males of African descent. Church records offer no clear insights into the origins of this practice”.

I really love the addition of “no clear insight” because it removes or at least isn’t written on stone the myth that the ban was “inspired/revelation by God”.

I think it is safe to say there are several factors that contributed to the ban. The son of Walker Lewis, Enoch Lovejoy Lewis, also joined the Church around the same time his father did, he married a white LDS woman, Mary Matilda Webster and it’s the speculation that this marriage and the unauthorized practice of Plural Marriage done by another Black LDS Elder by the name of William McCary (he seduced a number of LDS white women into the practice) it’s what possibly contributed to the Priesthood ban by Brigham Young. Why? Because during that same year, Young declared that Blacks are ineligible for certain temple ordinances due to the fact that the Lord cursed Cain’s seed and prohibited them from the Priesthood, even though two years prior to this statement, he clearly stated that this isn’t an issue of “blood”.

One of the things that it is usually forgotten when we discuss the Priesthood ban is the fact that Black women were also directly affected by the prohibition. They were not allowed to go to the Temple and receive their endowments or serve missions.

Jane Elizabeth Manning James was an African-American LDS member born in Connecticut in the 1820’s. She led a group of relatives (8 of them) to Nauvoo along with the Saints of the area. They were separated in New York after the captain of the steamboat where they were supposed to travel refused Jane and family entry because they were African Americans. It didn’t stop Jane’s determination to reach Nauvoo so she decided (along with her family)to walk to Nauvoo (900 miles), experiencing extremely harsh weather conditions, illnesses and almost ending in prison. If you saw the Church video called “The Prophet of the Restoration” you would have seen her character portrayed when the Prophet Joseph Smith is healing the feet of a black young woman. They walked until their shoes were worn out and their feet were so sore that they cracked open and bled to the point of making bloody prints on the ground.

After her husband died in 1891 Jane decided to ask the First Presidency to be given the ordination of adoption that the Prophet Joseph Smith and his wife Emma offered her in the past but that she politely refused due to the fact that she didn’t understand at that time the significance of such ordination. However, her request was once again refused.

Instead, the First Presidency decided (after several requests) that she could be adopted into the family of Joseph Smith as a servant for eternity. Jane was not allowed to be present in the ceremony. Joseph F. Smith acted as proxy for Joseph Smith, and Bathsheba W. Smith acted as proxy for Jane. I really think this was a failed attempt to get Jane to stop requesting the adoption. Jane of course, wasn’t satisfied so she petitioned once again in 1895 to the First Presidency to be sealed to the Smiths as a child but once again, was denied. She died in 1908 at age of 86, faithful to the Church as always. The work in the Temple has been done for her right after the lifting of the ban in 1978.

4. “Church leaders believed that a revelation from God was needed to alter this practice and prayerfully sought guidance”. This is also very significant. Was a revelation from God needed if the practice was never doctrinal? I think it’s safe to say that perhaps yes, for the simple fact that it seems like past leaders didn’t really know the origin of the practice (or at least was very confusing, specially the hearsay) so they figured it was a safer approach to receive a revelation rather than to take matters into their own hands and be wrong.

5. “The revelation came to Church President Spencer W. Kimball and was affirmed to other Church leaders in the Salt Lake Temple on June 1, 1978. The revelation removed all restrictions with regards to race that once applied to the priesthood.”

A glorious day in LDS history. A day where all the prejudice, pseudo-doctrines, 19th century thinking and personal bigotries were left behind and a new era started. I can only imagine the happy tears and joy felt by my dear African American Brothers and Sisters, I can only imagine Jane’s reaction in Heaven when she heard the news. She was patiently waiting for a hundred and six years since that first request and seventy years from the time she passed away….to receive her own endowments and be sealed for all time and eternity with her family. Yes Jane, it happened.